Fatal Variance Between Indictment And Proof

11 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Shapiro
  383 F.2d 680· 7th Cir.· 1967-08-24 ·cited 80×
  The majority held that the trial court erred by not using the American Law Institute's definition of insanity, requiring a new trial. The dissenting judge disagreed, believing the given instruction was proper.
• Epstein v. United States
  174 F.2d 754· 6th Cir.· 1949-04-11 ·cited 56×
  The court held that there was a fatal variance between the indictment's charge of defrauding by selling at excessive prices and the government's later theory of breach of trust by directors receiving secret profits. The trial court erred in refusing to grant a judgment of acquitt
• Marvin v. United States
  279 F.2d 451· 10th Cir.· 1960-06-03 ·cited 42×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 defines a single offense of mail fraud, which can be committed in multiple ways, and that the indictment and proof did not present a fatal variance.
• United States v. Davis
  592 F.2d 1325· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for embezzlement exceeding $100, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant legally sane.
• United States v. Bush
  599 F.2d 72· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof, and that the trial judge did not err in refusing certain jury instructions.
• United States v. McRARY
  665 F.2d 674· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 20×
• United States v. Alga Hope, Jr.
  861 F.2d 1574· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Count I of the indictment fails to state a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 because it alleges neither a direct nor indirect fraud on the United States, and affirming the district court's dismissal is appropriate.
• United States v. Becker
  444 F.2d 510· 4th Cir.· 1971-06-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants were properly sentenced under the general escape statute, 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), not the juvenile escape statute, 18 U.S.C. § 751(b).
• United States v. Fortney
  399 F.2d 406· 3d Cir.· 1968-08-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that including notes representing no real transaction as assets and failing to reflect payments constitutes a false entry, and a prosecutor's remark, in context, was not prejudicial enough to warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Kamber
  458 F.2d 918· 7th Cir.· 1971-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for making a false statement to the Selective Service was valid, rejecting all his grounds for appeal.
• Moore v. United States
  512 F.2d 1255· 4th Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possessing a prohibited firearm was valid, despite a variance between the indictment and the proof, because the weapon qualified as an 'any other weapon' under federal law and the variance was not prejudicial.